The Fascist State

1163. Do Roman Catholics place the Pope before the King?

What would you say were I to ask you, "Does a Protestant boy place his father before the King?" If you reasoned rightly you would say, "In some things he does; in other things he does not." You see, two different factors come into the case, and it is illogical to jump from one to the other in the same breath. The boy would owe filial piety to his father, and civic loyalty to his King. So, too, Catholics owe spiritual allegiance to the Pope, and civic loyalty to the King. In spiritual matters, they place the Pope before the King. In the civic order, they place the King before the Pope.

1164. Do Roman Catholics believe that the Pope is greater than the King?

I have just said that in spiritual matters the authority of the Pope comes before that of the King. In temporal and national matters, the authority of the King is supreme. If you ask me whether the spiritual and religious sphere is of greater dignity and importance than the temporal and national sphere, I must reply that it is. And as the Pope is the supreme ruler in the higher sphere, his office is greater than that of the King.

1165. Is local and national patriotism possible to a Catholic who accepts such views of the Pope?

It is not only possible. The Pope himself tells Catholics that it is their binding duty.

1166. Do not the ruling classes find the Catholic doctrine that the faithful must submit to civil authority a very convenient one?

Not always, by any means. We have to obey rulers for the love of God — and that can be done only in lawful matters. If rulers exceed their authority and demand obedience to unlawful commands — then the love of God forbids us to obey. The law of obedience in a spirit of loyalty to God imposes definite restrictions upon them. Thus Catholics can never admit that the State has any right to allow divorced people to re-marry if the previous and lawful partners are still living. And the fact that the State does allow it, in no way frees the conscience of a Christian from guilt.

1167. If the Catholic Church teaches patriotism, why does she forbid Catholics to be loyal to the "Totalitarian States"?

She does not. She bids them to be loyal to their countries insofar as the law of God permits. But they cannot accept those doctrines specifically which are opposed to God's law, religious freedom, and rightful individual liberties.

1168. Does the Catholic Church recognize the countries Italy, Russia, and Germany, to be "Totalitarian States"?

She does, and she repudiates their totalitarian principles. All three countries demand State Absolutism, Russia on a communistic basis, Italy and Germany on the basis of a fascist dictatorship. Italy, however, professes to exclude State authority in religious matters, though its tendency is ever to trespass on the religious field and conflict with the rights of the Church. Hitler, in Germany, would like to suppress the rights of the Church altogether, and repeatedly violates the guarantees he gave in his Concordat with the Vatican.

1169. Is the Catholic Church opposed to the "Totalitarian State" merely because that system seeks to subjugate the individual to the State, to the detriment of the individual?

Not merely because of that, although that is one good and sound reason for the opposition of the Catholic Church to "State Absolutism." The "Totalitarian State is also an invasion of domestic rights, and most dangerous to the freedom and independence of religion. Moreover, it is essentially wrong in itself. It supposes unlimited power vested in a dictator, or a ruling group, not constrained by law, and basing its power on force and violence. This means in practice the servile States with a tyranny established which was unknown even in ancient Sparta. The Catholic Church insists that justice will never be done unless government is truly representative in which the people's affairs are managed by men chosen by the people, and answerable to the people for their policy. On February 11th, 1929, the Lateran Concordat between Italy and the Vatican was signed. On May 13th, 1929, Mussolini declared that the education of youth belonged to the State; and that, while then would be taught the Catholic religion, they must be moulded according to Fascist ideals with a sense of virility and power of conquest. Next day, May 14th, the Pope denounced Mussolini's doctrine of State absolutism, his principle that children belonged to the State, and denied the right to instill aggressive nationalism and ideas of conquest. And he reminded Mussolini that the powers of the State are conferred upon it by those it governs. "Hence," he said, "the State must use its powers on behalf of those who conferred them." These words of the Pope show the wide gap between the democratic social principles of the Catholic Church, and the anti-democratic ideas of Fascism.

1170. In the light of these questions I am interested in the status of Catholics in Germany under the present National Socialist Regime.

It is a very unhappy one.

1171. Friends returned from Germany say that practically the whole nation, including the Catholic section, is wholeheartedly behind Hitler's regime.

That is the only impression which the ruling tyranny allows to be published in German papers. But it is not true.

1172. It is intelligible that all would support an unselfish effort to rebuild the nation after the hopeless post-war years.

That is true. But Catholics cannot wholeheartedly support the methods adopted. The "Totalitarian State," whether on Communistic or Fascist lines, is opposed to Catholic principles.

1173. I admit that the Church has had setbacks at the hands of the Nazi party, but not severe ones, and only in certain provinces.

The attacks on the Church, and on Catholics generally, have been most severe, and throughout Germany.

1174. I fail to see, therefore, how the present system of government in Germany can be detrimental to a Catholic either as a member of the Church or as a son of the Fatherland.

The essential tendency of the present regime in Germany, if it can accomplish it, is to rob a Catholic of his Faith, and to turn him from a son of the Fatherland into a slave of a Fascist dictatorship.

1175. Are the Catholics of Germany bound to refuse to support this order of government which alone offers hope to them?

I deny that the present form of government in Germany alone offers hope even from the national point of view. From the viewpoint of their religion, it offers Catholics but death and destruction. Yet it means persecution, misery, and death, if they do not submit in general to the prevailing tyranny. And I can but say of Catholics in Germany what the Pope himself said of Catholics in Italy as regards the Fascist regime. Here are his words: "We must say that one is not a Catholic — except in Baptism and by name as opposed to his obligations — who adopts and develops a program so opposed to the rights of the Church of Jesus Christ, and of souls." But he adds that he realizes how, for countless persons, daily bread and life itself, are at stake. So he says that, if they are compelled externally to support the "Totalitarian State," they must in their own consciences make the reservation "insofar as the laws of God and the Church permit," or "in accordance with the duties of a good Christian." And they must be prepared, if need be, to declare their reservation externally should they be asked to choose between the State and their religion. That judgment concerning the position of Catholics in Fascist Italy could apply to Catholics in Fascist Germany. The only difference is that Catholics in Germany are much the more likely to meet with the necessity of rejecting State demands in the name of God, and of suffering the consequences of their fidelity to conscience.

1176. Is it not well known that the Church of Rome accepts Fascism, which is akin to Communism?

Fascism is not essentially akin to Communism, although it can be perverted in the Communistic direction, as in Germany. The Catholic Church prescribes no political policy, and sanctions any form of government within the bounds of social justice. She does not accept Fascism any more than she accepts the present British constitution. She tolerates both, and would be quite prepared to condemn any abuses which might arise in these different forms of government.

1177. Yet Fascism is as great a curse as Communism, aiming to destroy the worker where the latter wants to destroy Capitalists.

Fascism does not aim at the destruction of the worker. Mussolini's Fascism sanctions and supports religion, and aims at the well-being of every individual in the State; and for that purpose demands that every individual must contribute towards the service, discipline, and progressive construction of the national well-being. Remonstrance by the Church against a few initial abuses, secured their rectification. Hitler's imitation of Fascism in Germany is no true indication of what real Fascism is. He has not understood at all the aims and principles of Fascism. Meantime, while Communism's objective has been to dethrone both religion and capitalism, it has succeeded in destroying the worker, and has merely imposed a new and worse tyranny. Nor only that. The Soviet is rapidly turning back towards capitalism, and is working on Capitalistic principles in its own name.

Preface To Volume One of "Radio Replies"

By RT. REV. MSGR. FULTON J. SHEEN, D.D

There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church  which is, of course, quite a different thing. These millions can hardly be blamed for hating Catholics because Catholics "adore statues"; because they "put the Blessed Mother on the same level with God"; because they say "indulgence is a permission to commit sin"; because the Pope "is a Fascist"; because the "Church is the defender of Capitalism." If the Church taught or believed any one of these things it should be hated, but the fact is that the Church does not believe nor teach any one of them. It follows then that the hatred of the millions is directed against error and not against truth. As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do.

If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates. My reason for doing this would be, that if Christ is in any one of the churches of the world today, He must still be hated as He was when He was on earth in the flesh. If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along with the world. Look for the Church that is hated by the world, as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times, as Our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having learned. Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because He came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. Look for the Church which, in seasons of bigotry, men say must be destroyed in the name of God as men crucified Christ and thought they had done a service to God. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because He called Himself the Truth. Look for the Church which is rejected by the world as Our Lord was rejected by men. Look for the Church which amid the confusion of conflicting opinions, its members love as they love Christ, and respect its Voice as the very voice of its Founder, and the suspicion will grow, that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world, then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly, it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly it is infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ Himself. But only that which is Divine can be infinitely hated and infinitely loved. Therefore the Church is Divine.

If then, the hatred of the Church is founded on erroneous beliefs, it follows that basic need of the day is instruction. Love depends on knowledge for we cannot aspire nor desire the unknown. Our great country is filled with what might be called marginal Christians, i.e., those who live on the fringe of religion and who are descendants of Christian living parents, but who now are Christians only in name. They retain a few of its ideals out of indolence and force of habit; they knew the glorious history of Christianity only through certain emasculated forms of it, which have married the spirit of the age and are now dying with it. Of Catholicism and its sacraments, its pardon, its grace, its certitude and its peace, they know nothing except a few inherited prejudices. And yet they are good people who want to do the right thing, but who have no definite philosophy concerning it. They educate their children without religion, and yet they resent the compromising morals of their children. They would be angry if you told them they were not Christian, and yet they do not believe that Christ is God. They resent being called pagans and yet they never take a practical cognizance of the existence of God. There is only one thing of which they are certain and that is that things are not right as they are. It is just that single certitude which makes them what might be called the great "potentials," for they are ready to be pulled in either of two directions. Within a short time they must take sides; they must either gather with Christ or they must scatter; they must either be with Him or against Him; they must either be on the cross as other Christs, or under it as other executioners. Which way will these marginal Christians tend? The answer depends upon those who have the faith. Like the multitudes who followed Our Lord into the desert, they are as sheep without a shepherd. They are waiting to be shepherded either with the sheep or goats. Only this much is certain. Being human and having hearts they want more than class struggle and economics; they want Life, they want Truth, and they want Love. In a word, they want Christ.

It is to these millions who believe wrong things about the Church and to these marginal Christians, that this little book is sent. It is not to prove that they are "wrong"; it is not to prove that we are "right"; it is merely to present the truth in order that the truth may conquer through the grace of God. When men are starving, one need not go to them and tell them to avoid poison; nor to eat bread because there are vitamins in bread. One need only go to them and tell them that they are starving and here is bread, and the laws of nature will do the rest. This book of "Radio Replies" with 1,588 questions and answers goes out on a similar mission. Its primary task is not to humble the erroneous; not to glorify the Catholic Church as intellectual and self-righteous, but to present the truth in a calm, clear manner in order that with the grace of God souls may come to the blessed embrace of Christ.

It is not only the point of "Radio Replies" to prove that the Church is the only completely soul-satisfying Church in existence at the present day; it is also to suggest that the Catholic Church is the only Church existing today which goes back to the time of Christ. History is so very clear on this point, it is curious how many minds miss its obviousness. When therefore you, the readers of "Radio Replies" in the twentieth century, wish to know about Christ and about His early Church, and about His mysteries, we ask you to go not only to the written records but to the living Church which began with Christ Himself. That Church or that Mystical Person which has been living all these centuries is the basis of our faith and to us Catholics it speaks this way: "I live with Christ. I saw His Mother and I know her to be a Virgin and the loveliest and purest of all women in heaven or on earth; I saw Christ at Caesarea-Philippi, when, after changing Simon's name to Rock, He told him he was the rock upon which the Church would be built and that it would endure unto the consummation of the world. I saw Christ hanging on a cross and I saw Him rise from His tomb; I saw Magdalene rush to His feet; I saw the angels clad in white beside the great stone; I was in the Cenacle room when doubting Thomas put fingers into His hands; I was on Olivet when He ascended into heaven and promised to send His Spirit to the apostles to make them the foundation of His new Mystical Body on earth. I was at the stoning of Stephen, saw Saul hold the garments of those who slew him, and later I heard Saul, as Paul, preach Christ and Him crucified; I witnessed the beheading of Peter and Paul in Rome, and with my very eyes saw tens of thousands of martyrs crimson the sands with their blood, rather than deny the faith Peter and Paul had preached unto them; I was living when Boniface was sent to Germany, when Augustine when to England, Cyril and Methodius to the Poles, and Patrick to Ireland; at the beginning of the ninth century I recall seeing Charlemagne crowned as king in matters temporal as Peter's vicar was recognized as supreme in matters spiritual; in the thirteenth century I saw the great stones cry out in tribute to me, and burst into Gothic Cathedrals; in the shadows of those same walls I saw great Cathedrals of thought arise in the prose of Aquinas and Bonaventure, and in the poetry of Dante; in the sixteenth century I saw my children softened by the spirit of the world leave the Father's house and reform the faith instead of reforming discipline which would have brought them back again into my embrace; in the last century and at the beginning of this I heard the world say it could not accept me because I was behind the times. I am not behind the times, I am only behind the scenes. I have adapted myself to every form of government the world has ever known; I have lived with Caesars and kings, tyrants and dictators, parliaments and presidents, monarchies and republics. I have welcomed every advance of science, and were it not for me the great records of the pagan world would not have been preserved. It is true I have not changed my doctrine, but that is because the doctrine is not mine but His who sent Me. I change my garments which belong to time, but not my Spirit which belongs to eternity. In the course of my long life I have seen so many modern ideas become unmodern, that I know I shall live to chant a requiem over the modern ideas of this day, as I chanted it over the modern ideas of the last century. I celebrated the nineteen-hundredth anniversary of the death of my Redeemer and yet I am no older now than then, for my Spirit is Eternal, and the Eternal never ages. I am the abiding Personage of the centuries. I am the contemporary of all civilizations. I am never out of date, because the dateless; never out of time, because the timeless. I have four great marks: I am One, because I have the same Soul I had in the beginning; I am Holy, because that Soul is the Spirit of Holiness; I am Catholic, because that Spirit pervades every living cell of my Body; I am Apostolic, because my origin is identical with Nazareth, Galilee and Jerusalem. I shall grow weak when my members become rich and cease to pray, but I shall never die. I shall be persecuted as I am persecuted now in Mexico and Russia; I shall be crucified as I was on Calvary, but I shall rise again, and finally when time shall be no more, and I shall have grown to my full stature, then shall I be taken into heaven as the bride of my Head, Christ, where the celestial nuptials shall be celebrated, and God shall be all in all, because His Spirit is Love and Love is Heaven."

Introduction To The American Edition Of "Radio Replies" Vol One

"Radio Replies" by Rev. Dr. Rumble, M.S.C., is the result of five years of answering questions during a one-hour Question Box Program over Radio Station 2SM Sydney, N.S.W. The revision of "Radio Replies" for American readers was prompted by the widespread interest the Australian edition created among Protestants and Catholics during the summer of 1937, when I was carrying on as a Catholic Campaigner for Christ, the Apostolate to the man in the street through the medium of my trailer and loud-speaking system. In the distribution of pamphlets and books on Catholicism "Radio Replies" proved the most talked of book carried in my trailer display of Catholic literature. The clergy and laymen engaged in Street Preaching agree that it is not so much what you say over the microphone in answer to questions from open air listeners but what you GET INTO THEIR HANDS TO READ.

My many converts of the highways and parks throughout the Archdiocese of St. Paul have embraced the faith as a result of studying this book. Whole families have come into the Church through reading the book by this renowned convert from Anglicanism. The delay in getting copies from Sydney and the prohibitive cost of the book on this side of the universe led me to petition the author to have published a CHEAP AMERICAN EDITION in order to get this Encyclopaedia of Catholic Doctrine into the hands of fellow citizens. Because of the author's genius for brevity, preciseness, fearlessness and keen logic that avoids the usually long Scriptural and Traditional arguments of the average question and answer book, which is beyond the capacity of the man in the street, this manual of 1,588 questions and replies has already attracted readers throughout Australia, New Zealand, Africa, India, England, Ireland, Canada and now the United States.

The questions he answers are the questions I had to answer before friendly and hostile audiences throughout my summer campaign. The piquant and provocative subject matter of this book makes it a fascinating assembly of 300 or more worth-while pamphlet tracts, a dictionary of doctrine for the desk of the FAMILY, the STUDENT, the SHOP HAND, the OFFICE WORKER, the ATTORNEY, the DOCTOR, the TEACHER, and the PREACHER. It is a handy standard reference book of excellence for popular questions which are more than ever being asked by restless and bewildered multitudes. It is a textbook for the Confraternities of Christian Doctrine Classes and Study Clubs.

A non-Catholic Professor after reading the book stated that, "If the Catholic Church could defend herself so logically as 'Radio Replies' demonstrates, then I do not see why you don't get more converts." Members of the Knights of Columbus, the Holy Name Societies and numerous women's societies have written in that they no longer have to apologetically say, "I can't answer that one." Catholic students in non-sectarian colleges and universities write in that they now walk the campus with this book under their arms, ready for all challenges and that this manual of ready reference has cured their INFERIORITY COMPLEX ON EXPOSITION OF CATHOLIC CLAIMS. Lapsed Catholics have come into my trailer-office to confess that the reading of "Radio Replies" has brought them back to the Church.

I am grateful to His Excellency Archbishop John G. Murray, D.D. for his approval of this compendium of dogmatic and moral theology for readers of the American Commonwealth and I am deeply appreciative to Rt. Rev. Msgr. Fulton J. Sheen, D.D. for writing the Preface to this American edition.

From my experience on the Catholic Radio Hour, on the lecture platform, and in the pulpit, I do not hesitate to say that HERE AT LAST is the book that has something for everybody, the book for the UNINFORMED CATHOLIC, THE UNEDUCATED AND EDUCATED LAPSED CATHOLIC, and the PROSPECTIVE CONVERT.

Historical Context of "Radio Replies"

By markomalley

If one recalls the time frame from which Radio Replies emerged, it can explain some of the frankness and lack of tact in the nature of the responses provided.

It was during this timeframe that a considerable amount of anti-Catholic rhetoric came to the forefront, particularly in this country. Much of this developed during the Presidential campaign of Al Smith in 1928, but had its roots in the publication of Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons, originally published in book form in 1919 and also published in pamphlet form in 1853.

While in Britain (and consequently Australia), the other fellow would surely have experienced the effects of the Popery Act, the Act of Settlement, the Disenfranchising Act, the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, and many others since the reformation (that basically boiled down to saying, "We won't kill you if you just be good, quiet little Catholics"). Even the so-called Catholic Relief Acts (1778, 1791, 1829, 1851, 1871) still had huge barriers placed in the way.

And of course, they'd both remember the American Protective Association, "Guy Fawkes Days" (which included burning the Pontiff in effigy), the positions of the Whigs and Ultra-Torries, and so on.

A strong degree of "in your face" from people in the position of authoritativeness was required back in the 1930s, as there was a large contingent of the populations of both the US and the British Empire who were not at all shy about being "in your face" toward Catholics in the first place (in other words, a particularly contentious day on Free Republic would be considered a mild day in some circles back then). Sure, in polite, educated circles, contention was avoided (thus the little ditty about it not being polite to discuss religion in public, along with sex and politics), but it would be naive to assume that we all got along, or anything resembling that, back in the day.

Having said all of the above, reading the articles from the modern mindset and without the historical context that I tried to briefly summarize above, they make challenging reading, due to their bluntness.

The reader should also keep in mind that the official teaching of the Church takes a completely different tone, best summed up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324

Important aside: Americans owe no loyalty to the president of the United States. While we may owe loyalty to the office of the president, and certainly owe loyalty to our constitution, any given person holding the office is just an employee. Our employee.

Since the start of the United States, those individuals who have occupied the office of the presidency have sought, and succeeded, in enlarging upon the power of the office. Both pragmatists and egoists, these actions should not be heralded, but scorned, because it was their job to carry out the duties of their office, not to increase their personal power in that office.

The end result of these actions has been indeed to increase the power of the presidency. But what is not seen is that by doing so, they *decrease* the level of loyalty owed the office by the citizenry.

Were the president to declare himself dictator, he would have immense power, but no citizen would owe him or his office any loyalty whatsoever. Yet despite his trampling of the constitution, we would still remember, honor, and retain our loyalty to it and its principles.

So when asked to whom our loyalties lie, father or king?, or king or Pope?, perhaps the best response would be “faith and constitution”.

9
posted on 03/25/2012 7:48:27 AM PDT
by yefragetuwrabrumuy
("We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." -- Hillary Clinton)

in spiritual matters the authority of the Pope comes before that of the King. In temporal and national matters, the authority of the King is supreme.

The loyalty to the constitution is not absolute either. When it speaks to how the elections are held, taxes levied, public works funded and wars declared, the loyalty belongs to the constitution. When the constitution is used to discover a right of a mother to kill her unborn child, or for two (or more) perverts to "marry", or forbids prayer or religious monuments, or to command pharmacists to sell contraception, then these laws, no matter how much they ostensibly rely on the constitution, do not have to be obeyed. If we obey them, that is not out of civic obligation but to avoid some greater harm.

2. The Church never considered being non-Catholic a capital offence. The Crusades were wars of liberation of the Holy Land. The Holy Inquisition is a Church court that punishes Catholics for preaching falsehoods. The most severe punishment that the Inquisition can or could impose was ex-communication. It has no jurisdiction over non-Catholics. Many governments considered heresy to be an act of treason and punished heretics by death. They -- not the Church -- are responsible for those who suffered death during the Inquisition. Nevertheless, the Church was responsible indirectly, through her judgment of heresy and for that we do apologize.

3. No matter how you count the "victims" of the Inquisition did not count in the "millions". Would you care to provide some source for this allegation?

4. Later (in 7) you seem to imply that the Church imposes a confession on non-Catholics. The fact is that confession is (a) voluntary and never imposed; (b) available either to Catholics or those who have resolved to become Catholic and confess as a part of their conversion, but not available to non-Catholics otherwise; and (c) is private so is not in the nature of a public apology.

It is fine to make posts hostile to Catholicism on an open thread such as this one, but if you also wish a meaningful response, it is a good idea to make a meaningful post. This forum has many knowledgeable posters and I encourage you to learn about Catholicism from them, as anyone interested in authentic Christianity must.

In my, granted, limited experience Protestants are by and large ignorant of the history of the Church and of the Holy Scripture.

What does your link say about the number of the "victims" of the Holy Inquisition? You previously said "millions"; where do I look on that site to find a corroboration of this?

The church reinforced the state and [vice-versa]

Well, yes. When the state was Catholic the Catholic Church supported it, naturally. We even support states that are not Catholic, all we ask is that the state upholds the Natural Law. But the Church does not interfere in the affairs of the state otherwise. For example, if the Spanish King decides that non-Catholics in the kingdom of Spain are ipso facto traitors, that is his prerogative to make such a law. It is however, the prerogative of the Church to decide who is and who is not Catholic. This is what the Holy Inquisition did, and continues to do (it is now called Office of the Doctrines of the Faith). In my opinion, it is long overdue that Rome establish a permanent office of the Inquisitor in the United States and not deal with the pederast priests and sundry "Catholics" of Pelosi mold piecemeal.

Moreover, while active homosexuality and disobedience to the episcopacy are sins that are grounds of excommunication, molestation of minors is also a crime in the United States and I fully support that the Church hand over the child molesters she discovers in her midst, to the District Attorney offices in the United States for civil prosecution.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.